Skip to main content

Progress Checking for Dummies

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
  • 664 Accesses

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 11119))

Abstract

Verification of progress properties is both conceptually and technically significantly more difficult than verification of safety and deadlock properties. In this study we focus on the conceptual side. We make a simple modification to a well-known model to demonstrate that it passes progress verification although the resulting model is intuitively badly incorrect. Then we point out that the error can be caught easily by adding a termination branch to the system. We compare the use of termination branches to the established method of addressing the same need, that is, weak fairness. Then we discuss another problem that may cause failure of catching progress errors even with weak fairness. Finally we point out an alternative notion of progress that needs no explicit fairness assumptions. Our ideas are especially well-suited for newcomers in model checking, and work well with stubborn set methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Dyseryn, V., van Glabbeek, R.J., Höfner, P.: Analysing mutual exclusion using process algebra with signals. In: Peters, K., Tini, S. (eds.) Proceedings of EXPRESS/SOS 2017, Berlin, Germany, 4 September 2017. EPTCS, vol. 255, pp. 18–34 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kaivola, R., Valmari, A.: The weakest compositional semantic equivalence preserving nexttime-less linear temporal logic. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) CONCUR 1992. LNCS, vol. 630, pp. 207–221. Springer, Heidelberg (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0084793

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems - Specification. Springer, New York (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-0931-7

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Pelánek, R.: BEEM: benchmarks for explicit model checkers. In: Bošnački, D., Edelkamp, S. (eds.) SPIN 2007. LNCS, vol. 4595, pp. 263–267. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73370-6_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Peterson, G.L.: Myths about the mutual exclusion problem. Inf. Process. Lett. 12(3), 115–116 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Reeves, G.E.: What really happened on Mars? (1997). https://www.cs.unc.edu/%7eanderson/teach/comp790/papers/mars_pathfinder_long_version.html. Accessed 7 May 2018

  7. Rensink, A., Vogler, W.: Fair testing. Inf. Comput. 205(2), 125–198 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Valmari, A.: The weakest deadlock-preserving congruence. Inf. Process. Lett. 53(6), 341–346 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Valmari, A.: A chaos-free failures divergences semantics with applications to verification. In: Davies, J., Roscoe, B., Woodcock, J. (eds.) Millennial Perspectives in Computer Science: Proceedings of the 1999 Oxford-Microsoft Symposium in Honour of Sir Tony Hoare, Cornerstones of Computing, pp. 365–382. Palgrave (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Valmari, A., Setälä, M.: Visual verification of safety and liveness. In: Gaudel, M.-C., Woodcock, J. (eds.) FME 1996. LNCS, vol. 1051, pp. 228–247. Springer, Heidelberg (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-60973-3_90

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Valmari, A., Tienari, M.: Compositional failure-based semantics models for basic LOTOS. Formal Asp. Comput. 7(4), 440–468 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Valmari, A., Vogler, W.: Fair testing and stubborn sets. In: Bošnački, D., Wijs, A. (eds.) SPIN 2016. LNCS, vol. 9641, pp. 225–243. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32582-8_16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Vogler, W. (ed.): Modular Construction and Partial Order Semantics of Petri Nets. LNCS, vol. 625. Springer, Heidelberg (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-55767-9

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henri Hansen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Valmari, A., Hansen, H. (2018). Progress Checking for Dummies. In: Howar, F., Barnat, J. (eds) Formal Methods for Industrial Critical Systems. FMICS 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11119. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00244-2_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00244-2_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-00243-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-00244-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics